11.10.10

Summary: Microsoft’s lobbyists are pushing for software patents to enter Europe at the moment, via the European Patent

MICROSOFT JUST cannot leave Europe alone. If not directly then indirectly it is trying to render software freedom “illegal”, using software patents of course. Working to expand a US-style system to Europe Microsoft created or recruited the ACT lobbyists, whose member Mr. Sax [1, 2, 3, 4] is now quoted in Murdoch’s press and his bosses are pleased about that:

ACT’s @mikesax quoted in WSJ advocating for European Patent, http://on.wsj.com/bclLeU

The last thing Europe needs to inherit from the United States is the patent law. There are truly wonderful things about the United States, but the patent system is not one of them. Here is a legal type, Patrick Anderson, telling a disaster tale that’s not at all fiction: [via]

The $80,000 “Reasonable” Website Modification

[...]

So, what I’m NOT going to do is discuss the relative value of combining electronic “pointing” methods, with information hierarchies for rapid navigation of content ca. 1990. Not only is this high speculative, not to mention well outside my expertise, but it is also overly complicated and (for the most part) entirely irrelevant. As with any other price tag, a company like Webvention will likely try and get as much as its “customers” are willing to pay. Truthfully, the $80,000 price tag is entirely reasonable for reasons having nothing whatsoever to do with the technical merit of the invention.The difference here is how patent licenses are “sold.”

When I go to buy a pair of jeans, I’m mainly thinking about what quality jeans I am getting, and whether I can get a comparable, or better, pair from someone else, for less money. The inherent costs in making a purchase (e.g. my time and the amount gas I use driving to the store) are largely irrelevant, or at best dwarfed by the cost of the product itself. In the case of patent licensing, what a given company is “willing to pay” is governed by as much (in some cases more by) the cost of making the purchase in the first place. There is a default negotiation process, called litigation, that brings with it certain, unavoidable costs (primarily in the form of lawyers).

The reasonableness of the $80,000 pricetag is exemplified by the actions of Five Star Quality Care, Novartis, Tenneco, Instinet and TriMas. Each of these companies have apparently received similar letters from Webventions, with similar demands for a license fee. Given this demand, the company has two basic options: respond or ignore. Those that ignore the demand will, in all likelihood, end up a party to a lawsuit at some indefinite point in the future, similar to Webvention v. Adidas, and Webvention v Abercrombie & Fitch, where about a dozen companies each stand accused of ignoring Webvention’s claims and continuing to infringe Webvention’s patent.

This is the last thing that Europe needs. And as Ciaran warns (as he did in the FSFE), the USPTO is getting worse right now rather than better. Dana Blankenhorn responds to it:

In addition to being obvious, the One-Click Patent (and many others) fail my mousetrap test. You should be able to patent a mousetrap design, just not the idea of catching mice.

Some patent attorneys think this weakening of obviousness obviously means it’s going to be easier to sneak obvious ideas through the patent office. That’s Slashdot’s fear as well.

I don’t think it’s quite that obvious.

This time for a change Blankenhorn does not add quotes and talking points from Microsoft Florian (as he has been doing a lot in recent months, maybe in order to start a hits-attracting controversy).

Here is one last item that we caught in the news. It’s about a famous (also controversial) distributor of Linux in a box:

TiVo (NSDQ: TIVO) is probably the most famous name in the consumer digital video recorder market, but its market share—estimated to be around 8 percent of the DVR market last year—hardly reflects that anymore. Since cable and satellite companies started getting into the DVR business, TiVo has been steadily edged out. A court case being argued Tuesday could determine whether the company gains some much-needed leverage against its cable and satellite rivals, or instead gets another push toward obscurity.

What Else is New

We’re being told by Microsoft that the “old” Microsoft is just a thing of the past while Microsoft keeps liaising with oppressive regimes like China’s and Trump's; what will it take for media in Microsoft’s pocket to openly admit that it all boils down to publicity stunts and nice-sounding euphemisms?

The GNOME Board of Directors works for IBM and/or Microsoft at GitHub; it’s not entirely surprising that despite opposition from some GNOME developers the head of the GNOME Foundation, preceded by people who have since defected to Microsoft, described Dr. Richard Stallman as “reprehensible” and called for him to step down (from his very own thing, never mind the “G” in GNOME standing for GNU)

Principled, opinionated, self-governing individuals aren't any good for corporations looking to not only use their projects but to totally control those projects (copyleft licences such as GPL already make that hard enough for them, so it takes more time for legal 'hacks' such as software patents, "clown computing" and GitHub)

Certain groups that claim to represent the values of "Open Source" are in fact promoting the interests of Microsoft, GitHub etc. (i.e. monopoly or "open" as in a bunch of monopolies like Facebook and Microsoft sharing code snippets/resources over GitHub)

Torvalds and others who are middle-aged (or older) males are often torpedoed using weakly-backed allegations (or insinuations/innuendo) of sexism; that does not seem to matter and won't matter when they treat men the same (or worse)

Linus Torvalds was not fully canceled; nor was Richard Stallman, who's still heading the GNU Project (under conditions specified by those looking to oust him; people who code for Microsoft GitHub and many IBM employees)

General Hugh Shelton, Chairman of the Board of Red Hat, explains (keynote in 2011 Red Hat Summit/JBoss World) that he was introduced to the system as part of a military campaign; it basically helped war, not antiwar

Techrights examines Red Hat’s (IBM’s) hypocritical claims about the Free Software Foundation, founded by Richard Stallman back when IBM was the “big scary monopolist”; IBM employees were prominent among those pushing to oust Stallman from the GNU Project, which he founded, as well

The (in)famous letter against Richard Stallman (RMS), which was signed by many Red Hat employees with Microsoft (GitHub) accounts, doesn’t look particularly good in light of recent revelations/findings; it increasingly looks like IBM simply wants Microsoft-hosted and “permissively” licensed stuff, just like another project it announced yesterday and another that it promoted yesterday

One might not expect this from a so-called 'charity'; the Gates Foundation's critics are often met with unprecedented aggression, threats and retribution, which make one wonder if it's really a charity or a greedy cult of personalities (Bill and Melinda)

The assault on the media by Bill Gates is a subject not often explored by the media (maybe because a lot of it is already bribed by him); but we're beginning to gather new and important evidence that explains how critics are muzzled (even fired) and critical pieces spiked, never to see the light of day anywhere

Microsoft buying GitHub does not demonstrate that Microsoft loves Open Source (GitHub is not Open Source and may never be) but that it loves monopoly and coercion (what GitHub is all about and why it must be rejected)

The European Patent Office (EPO) keeps granting fake patents that cause a lot of real harm (examiners are pressured to play along and participate in this unlawful agenda); nobody is happy except those who profit from needless, frivolous lawsuits